Americans United - U.S. Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuithttps://www.au.org/federal-courts/us-court-appeals-eleventh-circuit
enBeckwith Electric Co. v. Burwellhttps://www.au.org/our-work/legal/lawsuits/beckwith-electric-co-v-burwell
<div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden"><div class="prose"><div>As part of the Affordable Care Act's implementing regulations, group health plans are required to include coverage for various forms of preventative care, including all FDA-approved methods of contraception. Various secular, for-profit businesses with religious owners have filed lawsuits asserting that they cannot include contraception coverage in employee health plans without violating, among other things, their free exercise rights under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA). </div><div> </div><div>Beckwith Electric is a for-profit company that designs, manufactures and markets microprocessors for electric generators. In March 2013, Beckwith Electric and its owner, Thomas Beckwith, filed suit challenging the contraceptive regulations in federal court. After the trial court ruled in favor of the corporation and its owner, the government appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. In October 2013, we filed an <a href="/files/legal_docs/Final%20Amicus%20Brief%20-%20File%20Stamped%20%28Oct.%2028%2C%202013%29.pdf">amicus brief in support of the government</a>. </div><div> </div><div>The Supreme Court then agreed to hear two cases brought by similar for-profit plaintiffs: <a href="https://www.au.org/our-work/legal/lawsuits/burwell-v-hobby-lobby-stores-inc">Hobby Lobby</a> and <a href="https://www.au.org/our-work/legal/lawsuits/conestoga-wood-specialties-corp-v-burwell">Conestoga Wood</a>. In June 2014, the Court held, in a 5-4 decision, that the Religious Freedom Restoration Act required an exemption for objecting for-profit corporations. The government then dismissed its appeal of the trial court's order in favor of Beckwith Electric. </div><div> </div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-federal-court field-type-taxonomy-term-reference field-label-inline clearfix"><div class="field-label">Federal Court:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><a href="/federal-courts/us-court-appeals-eleventh-circuit">U.S. Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/federal-courts/us-district-court-middle-district-florida">U.S. District Court, Middle District of Florida</a></div></div></div><div class="tags clearfix"><div class="field-label">Issues:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><span class="field-item"><a href="/issues/workplace-discrimination-exemptions-religious-practice">In the Workplace: Discrimination, Exemptions &amp; Religious Practice</a></span>, <span class="field-item"><a href="/issues/other-free-exercise-issues-including-rfras-zoning-etc">Other Free Exercise Issues (including RFRAs, zoning, etc.)</a></span></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-aus-role field-type-taxonomy-term-reference field-label-inline clearfix"><div class="field-label">AU&#039;s Role:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><a href="/au-role/amicus">Amicus</a></div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-involvement-begin field-type-date field-label-inline clearfix"><div class="field-label">AU&#039;s Involvement Began:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><span class="date-display-single">October 2013</span></div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-case-status field-type-taxonomy-term-reference field-label-inline clearfix"><div class="field-label">Status:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><a href="/court-case-status/closed">Closed</a></div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-chapter field-type-taxonomy-term-reference field-label-above"><div class="field-label">Chapters:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><a href="/chapters/northeast-florida">Northeast Florida</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/chapters/sarasota-manatee">Sarasota-Manatee</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/chapters/nature-coast">Nature Coast</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/chapters/flagler-county">Flagler County</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/chapters/gainesville">Gainesville</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/chapters/central-florida">Central Florida</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/chapters/clay-county">Clay County</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/chapters/naples">Naples</a></div></div></div><span class="field field-name-field-address field-type-addressfield field-label-above" ><span class="field-label">Address:&nbsp;</span><span class="field addressfield field-item" ><span class="addressfield-citystate">FL</span></span></span>Sat, 11 Oct 2014 23:34:53 +0000Gregory Lipper10588 at https://www.au.orghttps://www.au.org/our-work/legal/lawsuits/beckwith-electric-co-v-burwell#commentsFarina v. Secretary, Florida Department of Correctionshttps://www.au.org/our-work/legal/lawsuits/farina-v-secretary-florida-department-of-corrections
<div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden"><div class="prose"><p>Anthony Farina was convicted of first-degree murder for the 1992 robbery of a fast-food restaurant that left one employee dead. During the sentencing phase of his trial, Farina called a minister to testify about his reformed character and embrace of Christianity in prison. On cross-examination, the prosecutor grilled the minister about Christian theology, including the Book of Romans, which addresses “submission to authority.” In his closing argument, the prosecutor added that those who “rebel against the authority…will bring judgment on themselves.”</p><p>The jury voted unanimously to sentence Farina to death. In a previous sentencing trial, where the prosecutor made no religious arguments, the vote was only 7–5 in favor of a death sentence. After the Florida Supreme Court affirmed his sentence, Farina sought postconviction review in federal court. </p><p>In November 2012, we filed <a href="https://www.au.org/files/pdf_documents/Farina_Brief.pdf">an amicus brief with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit</a> in support of Farina. Joined by a diverse set of religious groups, we argued that the prosecutor’s religious references both deprived Farina of a fair trial and “injure[d] the interests of the diverse religious communities that thrive in our society in part by virtue of their independence from the operations of the state.” In September of 2013, the Eleventh Circuit vacated Farina’s death sentence.</p><p>In April 2014, the state asked the Supreme Court to hear the case.</p><p> </p></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-federal-court field-type-taxonomy-term-reference field-label-inline clearfix"><div class="field-label">Federal Court:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><a href="/federal-courts/us-court-appeals-eleventh-circuit">U.S. Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit</a></div></div></div><div class="tags clearfix"><div class="field-label">Issues:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><span class="field-item"><a href="/issues/outside-workplace-discrimination-exemptions-religious-practice-including-military-prisons">Outside the Workplace: Discrimination, Exemptions &amp; Religious Practice (including in the Military, Prisons, Housing, Healthcare, etc.)</a></span></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-aus-role field-type-taxonomy-term-reference field-label-inline clearfix"><div class="field-label">AU&#039;s Role:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><a href="/au-role/amicus">Amicus</a></div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-involvement-begin field-type-date field-label-inline clearfix"><div class="field-label">AU&#039;s Involvement Began:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><span class="date-display-single">November 2012</span></div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-case-status field-type-taxonomy-term-reference field-label-inline clearfix"><div class="field-label">Status:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><a href="/court-case-status/ongoing">Ongoing</a></div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-chapter field-type-taxonomy-term-reference field-label-above"><div class="field-label">Chapters:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><a href="/chapters/central-florida">Central Florida</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/chapters/clay-county">Clay County</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/chapters/flagler-county">Flagler County</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/chapters/gainesville">Gainesville</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/chapters/naples">Naples</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/chapters/nature-coast">Nature Coast</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/chapters/northeast-florida">Northeast Florida</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/chapters/sarasota-manatee">Sarasota-Manatee</a></div></div></div><span class="field field-name-field-address field-type-addressfield field-label-above" ><span class="field-label">Address:&nbsp;</span><span class="field addressfield field-item" ><span class="addressfield-citystate">FL</span></span></span>Tue, 24 Jun 2014 00:20:48 +0000Gregory Lipper10170 at https://www.au.orghttps://www.au.org/our-work/legal/lawsuits/farina-v-secretary-florida-department-of-corrections#commentsAtheists of Florida, Inc. v. City of Lakelandhttps://www.au.org/our-work/legal/lawsuits/atheists-of-florida-inc-v-city-of-lakeland
<div class="field field-name-field-federal-court field-type-taxonomy-term-reference field-label-inline clearfix"><div class="field-label">Federal Court:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><a href="/federal-courts/us-court-appeals-eleventh-circuit">U.S. Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit</a></div></div></div><div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden"><div class="prose"><p>For decades, the City of Lakeland has opened its Commission meetings with prayers delivered by invited clergy. And for twenty-five years, these speakers were selected from a list containing clergy from exclusively Christian denominations; the invited Christian clergy typically delivered Christian prayers. After the plaintiffs complained in March 2010, the City expanded its list of invited clergy to include other denominations. </p><p>Plaintiffs filed suit against the City in July 2010, arguing that the City's practices violated several constitutional provisions, including the First Amendment's Establishment Clause. In February 2012, the trial court dismissed the case, concluding that even a pattern of Christian-only speakers delivering Christian-only prayers was lawful so long as the City did not intentionally exclude non-Christians from speaking. The plaintiffs appealed.</p><p>On May 18, 2012, we <a href="/files/legal_docs/Lakeland%20Amicus%20Brief.pdf">filed an amicus brief</a>, supporting the plaintiffs, in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. Our brief focused on the City's practices before it expanded the clergy list in March 2010. These original practices violated the Establishment Clause, we argued, because they resulted in exclusively Christian speakers delivering Christian prayers. Even without intentional discrimination, we observed, the Constitution prohibits governments from engaging in practices that have the effect of promoting a particular religion; whatever the City's motives, their original practices resulted in support for Christianity and Christianity alone. </p><p>The Eleventh Circuit has scheduled oral argument for December.</p><p> </p></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-aus-role field-type-taxonomy-term-reference field-label-inline clearfix"><div class="field-label">AU&#039;s Role:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><a href="/au-role/amicus">Amicus</a></div></div></div><div class="tags clearfix"><div class="field-label">Issues:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><span class="field-item"><a href="/issues/prayer-at-government-events-and-legislative-meetings">Prayer at Government Events and Legislative Meetings</a></span></div></div><div class="tags clearfix"><div class="field-label">Tags:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><span class="field-item"><a href="/tags/legislative-prayer">legislative prayer</a></span></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-involvement-begin field-type-date field-label-inline clearfix"><div class="field-label">AU&#039;s Involvement Began:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><span class="date-display-single">May 2012</span></div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-case-status field-type-taxonomy-term-reference field-label-inline clearfix"><div class="field-label">Status:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><a href="/court-case-status/ongoing">Ongoing</a></div></div></div><span class="field field-name-field-address field-type-addressfield field-label-above" ><span class="field-label">Address:&nbsp;</span><span class="field addressfield field-item" ><span class="addressfield-citystate">Lakeland, FL</span></span></span>Sat, 19 May 2012 17:52:15 +0000Gregory Lipper7155 at https://www.au.orghttps://www.au.org/our-work/legal/lawsuits/atheists-of-florida-inc-v-city-of-lakeland#commentsACLU of Florida, Inc. v. Dixie County, Floridahttps://www.au.org/our-work/legal/lawsuits/aclu-of-florida-inc-v-dixie-county-florida
<div class="field field-name-field-federal-court field-type-taxonomy-term-reference field-label-inline clearfix"><div class="field-label">Federal Court:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><a href="/federal-courts/us-court-appeals-eleventh-circuit">U.S. Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit</a></div></div></div><div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden"><div class="prose"><p>Late in 2006, the Dixie County Commission allowed a local resident to install a five-foot, six-ton granite Ten Commandments monument on the steps of the county courthouse. The monument -- which has the phrase “LOVE GOD AND KEEP HIS COMMANDMENTS” chiseled into its base -- is the only object on the courthouse steps and is visible from the street.</p><div><div>In response, the ACLU of Florida filed a lawsuit in federal court. It argued that although the monument was purchased and maintained using private funds, its presence on the steps of the county courthouse led to the government endorsement of religion, in violation of the Establishment Clause. The trial court agreed, and ordered the removal of the monument; the County appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit.</div><div> </div><div>We filed an <a href="http://www.au.org/files/pdf_documents/DixieBrFin_0.pdf">amicus brief</a> in support of the plaintiffs, in November 2011. Our brief, which was joined by several religious organizations, traced the history of involvement by Religious Right groups and their political allies in the promotion of Ten Commandments displays, leading such displays to “communicate a message to non-Christians of outsider status in American political life."</div><div> </div><div>The Court of Appeals heard oral argument in March 2012. We are awaiting a decision.</div><div> </div><div> </div></div><p> </p><p> </p></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-aus-role field-type-taxonomy-term-reference field-label-inline clearfix"><div class="field-label">AU&#039;s Role:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><a href="/au-role/amicus">Amicus</a></div></div></div><div class="tags clearfix"><div class="field-label">Issues:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><span class="field-item"><a href="/issues/government-sponsored-religious-displays">Government-Sponsored Religious Displays</a></span>, <span class="field-item"><a href="/issues/descriptions-and-activities-religious-right-groups">Descriptions and Activities of Religious Right Groups</a></span></div></div><div class="tags clearfix"><div class="field-label">Tags:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><span class="field-item"><a href="/tags/ten-commandments">ten commandments</a></span></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-involvement-begin field-type-date field-label-inline clearfix"><div class="field-label">AU&#039;s Involvement Began:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><span class="date-display-single">November 2011</span></div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-case-status field-type-taxonomy-term-reference field-label-inline clearfix"><div class="field-label">Status:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><a href="/court-case-status/ongoing">Ongoing</a></div></div></div><span class="field field-name-field-address field-type-addressfield field-label-above" ><span class="field-label">Address:&nbsp;</span><span class="field addressfield field-item" ><span class="addressfield-citystate">Dixie County, FL</span></span></span>Thu, 01 Mar 2012 22:09:30 +0000Gregory Lipper6878 at https://www.au.orghttps://www.au.org/our-work/legal/lawsuits/aclu-of-florida-inc-v-dixie-county-florida#commentsPelphrey v. Cobb Countyhttps://www.au.org/our-work/legal/lawsuits/pelphrey-v-cobb-county-0
<div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden"><div class="prose"><p>County residents, represented by the ACLU of Georgia, filed suit in federal court, challenging the practice by two County Commissions of opening meetings with sectarian prayers. Roughly 70% of the meetings’ invocations were sectarian (all Christian); and more than 90% of the clergy invited to deliver the prayers had been Christian. In September 2006, the district court held that the sectarian references in the prayers were "rather innocuous" and therefore were constitutionally permissible. The court also held that the commissions’ practice of using the Yellow Pages to create their lists of prayergivers was unobjectionable. The court did find, however, that one of the commissions had, in the past, engaged in impermissible religious discrimination by systematically excluding non-Christians from its list. The court awarded nominal damages for that violation, but it refused to issue an injunction because the discriminatory practice had ceased. The ACLU asked us to participate as co-counsel in appealing the decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit; and the County cross-appealed on the nominal-damages award. We filed our opening appellate brief in September 2007. The County filed its combined response and cross-appeal brief in November 2007. We filed our reply and cross-response brief in January 2008. <i></i>The Eleventh Circuit heard oral argument in August 2008. On October 28, 2008, the court issued its decision. The court unanimously (a) upheld the district court’s ruling that one of the commissions had, in the past, engaged in impermissible religious discrimination, (b) upheld the district court’s nominal-damages award, and (c) concluded that Plaintiffs had standing to sue. A majority of the court also upheld the district court’s ruling that the legislative prayer was constitutional. It reasoned that the Establishment Clause permits any legislative prayer, so long as the prayer opportunity has not been exploited to advance or disparage religion, and hence that the diversity of religions represented in the prayers and the lack of evidence of an impermissible motive in the commissions’ current method of selecting prayergivers were sufficient to render the prayers constitutional. <i></i>The parties agreed not to seek review of the decision by the U.S. Supreme Court. The County agreed to pay the Plaintiffs attorney’s fees for the portion of the case that they won. The case was thus concluded.</p></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-federal-court field-type-taxonomy-term-reference field-label-inline clearfix"><div class="field-label">Federal Court:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><a href="/federal-courts/us-court-appeals-eleventh-circuit">U.S. Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit</a></div></div></div><div class="tags clearfix"><div class="field-label">Issues:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><span class="field-item"><a href="/issues/official-prayer-religious-displays-ceremonial-religion-outside-schools">Official Prayer, Religious Displays &amp; Ceremonial Religion (outside schools)</a></span>, <span class="field-item"><a href="/issues/prayer-at-government-events-and-legislative-meetings">Prayer at Government Events and Legislative Meetings</a></span></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-aus-role field-type-taxonomy-term-reference field-label-inline clearfix"><div class="field-label">AU&#039;s Role:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><a href="/au-role/co-counsel">Co-Counsel</a></div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-involvement-begin field-type-date field-label-inline clearfix"><div class="field-label">AU&#039;s Involvement Began:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><span class="date-display-single">September 2007</span></div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-case-status field-type-taxonomy-term-reference field-label-inline clearfix"><div class="field-label">Status:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><a href="/court-case-status/closed">Closed</a></div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-recent-developments field-type-text-long field-label-above"><div class="field-label">Most Recent Developments:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"></div></div></div><span class="field field-name-field-address field-type-addressfield field-label-above" ><span class="field-label">Address:&nbsp;</span><span class="field addressfield field-item" ><span class="addressfield-citystate">GA</span></span></span>Thu, 15 Sep 2011 14:12:11 +0000Americans United5714 at https://www.au.orghttps://www.au.org/our-work/legal/lawsuits/pelphrey-v-cobb-county-0#commentsGlassroth v. Moorehttps://www.au.org/our-work/legal/lawsuits/glassroth-v-moore
<div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden"><div class="prose"><p>The Chief Justice of the Alabama Supreme Court, Roy Moore, placed a 5,300 pound granite monument to the Ten Commandments in the rotunda of the State Judicial Building. We filed suit, along with the Alabama ACLU and the Southern Poverty Law Center, in October 2001, seeking removal of the monument. We conducted substantial discovery, including the deposition of Chief Justice Moore, and then tried the case from October 15-23, 2002. On November 18, 2002, the Court found the monument unconstitutional and, thereafter, ordered its removal but stayed the injunction. Moore appealed and, on June 4, 2003, AU’s Legal Director Ayesha Khan presented oral argument to a panel of the Eleventh Circuit on behalf of the plaintiffs. On July 1, 2003, the panel unanimously ruled that the monument reflected a religious purpose and effect. The trial judge then reissued an injunction ordering the monument’s removal but Moore announced his intent to defy it. The remaining Alabama Supreme Court Justices, however, issued an order directing compliance with the federal court order. Moore engaged in a variety of legal shenanigans in an effort to keep the monument in place but the monument was moved on August 27, 2003. Moore filed a second appeal from the new injunction in early September 2003 (which we moved to dismiss), and also filed a petition for <i>certiorari </i>with the U.S. Supreme Court on September 29, 2003 (on which we waived opposition). In early November 2003, the Eleventh Circuit dismissed the second appeal, and the Supreme Court opted not to hear Moore’s case. In mid-November 2003, a state judicial ethics panel removed Moore from office because of his defiance. Moore appealed that decision but lost in a unanimous decision before the Alabama Supreme Court and then the U.S. Supreme Court denied review in early October 2004. In the meantime, a new Chief Justice was substituted as the defendant in our case, and we reached a settlement with his counsel on the plaintiffs’ motion for attorneys’ fees.</p></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-federal-court field-type-taxonomy-term-reference field-label-inline clearfix"><div class="field-label">Federal Court:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><a href="/federal-courts/us-court-appeals-eleventh-circuit">U.S. Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit</a></div></div></div><div class="tags clearfix"><div class="field-label">Issues:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><span class="field-item"><a href="/issues/official-prayer-religious-displays-ceremonial-religion-outside-schools">Official Prayer, Religious Displays &amp; Ceremonial Religion (outside schools)</a></span>, <span class="field-item"><a href="/issues/government-sponsored-religious-displays">Government-Sponsored Religious Displays</a></span></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-aus-role field-type-taxonomy-term-reference field-label-inline clearfix"><div class="field-label">AU&#039;s Role:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><a href="/au-role/counsel">Counsel</a></div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-involvement-begin field-type-date field-label-inline clearfix"><div class="field-label">AU&#039;s Involvement Began:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><span class="date-display-single">October 2001</span></div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-case-status field-type-taxonomy-term-reference field-label-inline clearfix"><div class="field-label">Status:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><a href="/court-case-status/closed">Closed</a></div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-recent-developments field-type-text-long field-label-above"><div class="field-label">Most Recent Developments:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"></div></div></div><span class="field field-name-field-address field-type-addressfield field-label-above" ><span class="field-label">Address:&nbsp;</span><span class="field addressfield field-item" ><span class="addressfield-citystate">AL</span></span></span>Thu, 15 Sep 2011 14:12:08 +0000Americans United5694 at https://www.au.orghttps://www.au.org/our-work/legal/lawsuits/glassroth-v-moore#commentsKing v. Richmond Countyhttps://www.au.org/our-work/legal/lawsuits/king-v-richmond-county
<div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden"><div class="prose"><p>The Superior Court of Richmond County embosses certain court documents with a seal, adopted in 1870, that consists of two tablets containing Roman numerals I-X, surrounded by the words "Superior Court Richmond County, GA." The plaintiffs claimed that use of the seal violated the Establishment Clause. The district court rejected the claim and, on appeal to the Eleventh Circuit, in September 2002, we filed an <i>amicus</i> brief arguing that the content of the seal manifests a religious purpose, and that the seal’s use has the unconstitutional effect of linking government and religion. Oral argument was held on March 5, 2003, and on May 30, 2003, the panel upheld the seal, finding that it had the secular purpose of identifying legal documents. The court also found that the seal did not have a primarily religious effect because it is used in the very limited context of authenticating legal documents, so there is a tight nexus between the county’s purpose and the context of use; the Commandments are joined by a sword, the most recognizable symbol of the secular legal system; the seal is small and discrete, rather than in a position of prominence or special honor; and the depiction omits the text of the Commandments. The plaintiffs filed a motion for <i>en banc</i> review which was denied on August 6, 2003. The plaintiffs elected not to ask the U.S. Supreme Court to take the case.</p></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-federal-court field-type-taxonomy-term-reference field-label-inline clearfix"><div class="field-label">Federal Court:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><a href="/federal-courts/us-court-appeals-eleventh-circuit">U.S. Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit</a></div></div></div><div class="tags clearfix"><div class="field-label">Issues:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><span class="field-item"><a href="/issues/official-prayer-religious-displays-ceremonial-religion-outside-schools">Official Prayer, Religious Displays &amp; Ceremonial Religion (outside schools)</a></span>, <span class="field-item"><a href="/issues/government-sponsored-religious-displays">Government-Sponsored Religious Displays</a></span></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-aus-role field-type-taxonomy-term-reference field-label-inline clearfix"><div class="field-label">AU&#039;s Role:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><a href="/au-role/amicus">Amicus</a></div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-involvement-begin field-type-date field-label-inline clearfix"><div class="field-label">AU&#039;s Involvement Began:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><span class="date-display-single">September 2002</span></div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-case-status field-type-taxonomy-term-reference field-label-inline clearfix"><div class="field-label">Status:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><a href="/court-case-status/closed">Closed</a></div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-recent-developments field-type-text-long field-label-above"><div class="field-label">Most Recent Developments:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"></div></div></div><span class="field field-name-field-address field-type-addressfield field-label-above" ><span class="field-label">Address:&nbsp;</span><span class="field addressfield field-item" ><span class="addressfield-citystate">GA</span></span></span>Thu, 15 Sep 2011 14:12:08 +0000Americans United5696 at https://www.au.orghttps://www.au.org/our-work/legal/lawsuits/king-v-richmond-county#commentsSelman v. Cobb County School Districthttps://www.au.org/our-work/legal/lawsuits/selman-v-cobb-county-school-district
<div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden"><div class="prose"><p>The Cobb County School District passed a policy in March 2002 requiring that all biology textbooks bear a sticker stating, "This textbook contains material on evolution. Evolution is a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully, and critically considered." Parents of students in the School District filed a lawsuit challenging this anti-evolution disclaimer in federal court. The district court held after trial that the disclaimer was adopted for the secular purpose of accommodating religious objections, but that it had the unconstitutional effect of endorsing religion. The School District appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. On June 9, 2005, Americans United, joined by the American Jewish Committee and the Anti-Defamation League, filed an <i>amicus curiae</i> brief in the Eleventh Circuit in support of the plaintiffs. The <i>amicus</i> brief argued that although the district court had correctly found that the disclaimer had an unconstitutional effect, it had erred when it held that placating religiously motivated objectors is a secular purpose; and therefore, the court’s decision should be upheld not only because the disclaimer has a religious effect but also because it was enacted with a religious purpose. In November 2005, we submitted a notice of supplemental authority to the Eleventh Circuit, arguing that the Supreme Court’s decision in <i>McCreary County, Kentucky v. ACLU </i>(described below) supported the points in our <i>amicus</i> brief. Oral argument was held on December 15, 2005. On May 25, 2006, the Court of Appeals vacated the district court’s ruling and remanded for a clarification of the trial record, which it found to be insufficient to permit appellate review of the district court’s decision. Following the Eleventh Circuit’s decision, AU agreed to serve as lead counsel in representing the plaintiffs. The parties attended a status conference in the summer of 2006, at which plaintiffs asked the court to reopen discovery and hold a new trial in order to address the Eleventh Circuit’s concerns about the trial record. The court granted both requests. We served new written discovery, deposition notices, and expert reports. Before any new depositions were taken, however, the parties reached a settlement in mid-December 2006. Under the resulting consent order, the School District is prohibited from (1) reattaching to science textbooks the evolution-disclaimer stickers or any other statements regarding evolution, Charles Darwin, creation science, intelligent design, or any other religious view concerning the origins of life or the origins of human beings; (2) making any disclaimers regarding evolution orally, in writing, or by any other means; (3) excising or redacting materials on evolution in students’ science textbooks; and (4) violating state educational standards regarding the teaching of evolution. Should the School District violate any of these provisions, the case will be reopened and the school district may be liable for all attorneys’ fees accrued since the start of the case. </p></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-federal-court field-type-taxonomy-term-reference field-label-inline clearfix"><div class="field-label">Federal Court:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><a href="/federal-courts/us-court-appeals-eleventh-circuit">U.S. Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit</a></div></div></div><div class="tags clearfix"><div class="field-label">Issues:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><span class="field-item"><a href="/issues/religion-public-schools-and-universities">Religion in Public Schools and Universities</a></span>, <span class="field-item"><a href="/issues/creationism-evolution">Creationism &amp; Evolution</a></span></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-aus-role field-type-taxonomy-term-reference field-label-inline clearfix"><div class="field-label">AU&#039;s Role:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><a href="/au-role/counsel">Counsel</a></div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-involvement-begin field-type-date field-label-inline clearfix"><div class="field-label">AU&#039;s Involvement Began:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><span class="date-display-single">June 2005</span></div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-case-status field-type-taxonomy-term-reference field-label-inline clearfix"><div class="field-label">Status:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><a href="/court-case-status/closed">Closed</a></div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-recent-developments field-type-text-long field-label-above"><div class="field-label">Most Recent Developments:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"></div></div></div><span class="field field-name-field-address field-type-addressfield field-label-above" ><span class="field-label">Address:&nbsp;</span><span class="field addressfield field-item" ><span class="addressfield-citystate">GA</span></span></span>Thu, 15 Sep 2011 14:12:08 +0000Americans United5680 at https://www.au.orghttps://www.au.org/our-work/legal/lawsuits/selman-v-cobb-county-school-district#commentsAdler v. Duval County School Boardhttps://www.au.org/our-work/legal/lawsuits/adler-v-duval-county-school-board
<div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden"><div class="prose"><p>In 1992, the Duval County School Board, a school district with a long history of prayers at high school graduations, approved a "Graduation Prayers" policy encouraging voluntary student "messages" at commencement exercises. Students and parents challenged the new policy, but in 1994, the federal district court granted summary judgment for the School District, thereby allowing the prayers. On appeal, AU joined with other groups in an <i>amicus</i> brief filed on July 25, 1994 and arguing that the challenged policy was unconstitutional. The Eleventh Circuit later dismissed the lawsuit, however, finding the claims moot because the plaintiffs had graduated. Subsequently, in May 1998, a new challenge was brought to the policy, but the district court again denied relief. On June 20, 1998, AU joined an Eleventh Circuit <i>amicus </i>brief arguing that public school graduation ceremonies are not public fora and that the prayers are unconstitutional. A panel of the Circuit agreed in a May 1999 ruling, but that holding was reversed <i>en banc</i>. In October 2000, the U.S. Supreme Court vacated the <i>en banc</i> ruling and remanded the case for further consideration in light of its <i>Santa Fe</i> decision. On May 11, 2001, the Eleventh Circuit reinstated its previous <i>en banc</i> decision, holding that the policy was not facially invalid. The plaintiffs filed a petition for <i>certiorari</i> with the U.S. Supreme Court on August 8, 2001, which was denied in December 2001.</p></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-federal-court field-type-taxonomy-term-reference field-label-inline clearfix"><div class="field-label">Federal Court:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><a href="/federal-courts/us-court-appeals-eleventh-circuit">U.S. Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit</a></div></div></div><div class="tags clearfix"><div class="field-label">Issues:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><span class="field-item"><a href="/issues/religion-public-schools-and-universities">Religion in Public Schools and Universities</a></span>, <span class="field-item"><a href="/issues/school-prayer">School Prayer</a></span></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-aus-role field-type-taxonomy-term-reference field-label-inline clearfix"><div class="field-label">AU&#039;s Role:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><a href="/au-role/amicus">Amicus</a></div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-involvement-begin field-type-date field-label-inline clearfix"><div class="field-label">AU&#039;s Involvement Began:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><span class="date-display-single">July 1994</span></div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-case-status field-type-taxonomy-term-reference field-label-inline clearfix"><div class="field-label">Status:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><a href="/court-case-status/closed">Closed</a></div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-recent-developments field-type-text-long field-label-above"><div class="field-label">Most Recent Developments:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"></div></div></div><span class="field field-name-field-address field-type-addressfield field-label-above" ><span class="field-label">Address:&nbsp;</span><span class="field addressfield field-item" ><span class="addressfield-citystate">FL</span></span></span>Thu, 15 Sep 2011 14:12:05 +0000Americans United5662 at https://www.au.orghttps://www.au.org/our-work/legal/lawsuits/adler-v-duval-county-school-board#commentsChandler v. Jameshttps://www.au.org/our-work/legal/lawsuits/chandler-v-james
<div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden"><div class="prose"><p>On February 1, 1996, AU and the Alabama ACLU challenged Alabama’s "Student-Initiated Prayer Statute" as well as a wide range of officially sponsored religious activities taking place in the DeKalb and Talladega County Public Schools, including student and clergy prayer in the classrooms, in school assemblies, at graduations and at sporting events. The suit also challenged excessive school involvement in Bible distribution by the Gideons. Talladega County settled, but the other defendants did not. On March 12, 1997, the district court found the statute unconstitutional. Then, in late October and early November 1997, the court issued a permanent injunction prohibiting a wide range of religious activity. The state, represented by Pat Robertson’s American Center for Law and Justice, appealed a portion of the injunction that prohibited school officials from "permitting" students to engage in religious speech in certain contexts and, on July 13, 1999, the Eleventh Circuit vacated the entire injunction as restricting student free speech rights. Thereafter, the U.S. Supreme Court vacated and remanded the Circuit’s decision in light of <i>Santa Fe</i>. On remand, the Circuit reaffirmed its earlier holding, finding it to be consistent with <i>Santa Fe</i>. On April 13, 2001, the Circuit denied rehearing <i>en banc</i> and, on June 18, 2001, the U.S. Supreme Court denied the plaintiffs’ petition for <i>certiorari</i>. We received an award of costs and attorneys’ fees, and the case is now concluded. </p></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-federal-court field-type-taxonomy-term-reference field-label-inline clearfix"><div class="field-label">Federal Court:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><a href="/federal-courts/us-court-appeals-eleventh-circuit">U.S. Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit</a></div></div></div><div class="tags clearfix"><div class="field-label">Issues:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><span class="field-item"><a href="/issues/religion-public-schools-and-universities">Religion in Public Schools and Universities</a></span>, <span class="field-item"><a href="/issues/school-prayer">School Prayer</a></span></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-aus-role field-type-taxonomy-term-reference field-label-inline clearfix"><div class="field-label">AU&#039;s Role:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><a href="/au-role/co-counsel">Co-Counsel</a></div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-involvement-begin field-type-date field-label-inline clearfix"><div class="field-label">AU&#039;s Involvement Began:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><span class="date-display-single">February 1996</span></div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-case-status field-type-taxonomy-term-reference field-label-inline clearfix"><div class="field-label">Status:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><a href="/court-case-status/closed">Closed</a></div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-recent-developments field-type-text-long field-label-above"><div class="field-label">Most Recent Developments:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"></div></div></div><span class="field field-name-field-address field-type-addressfield field-label-above" ><span class="field-label">Address:&nbsp;</span><span class="field addressfield field-item" ><span class="addressfield-citystate">AL</span></span></span>Thu, 15 Sep 2011 14:12:05 +0000Americans United5664 at https://www.au.orghttps://www.au.org/our-work/legal/lawsuits/chandler-v-james#comments